Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 5 days agoUpside down Rulesh.itjust.worksimagemessage-square52linkfedilinkarrow-up1349arrow-down133
arrow-up1316arrow-down1imageUpside down Rulesh.itjust.worksCheradenine@sh.itjust.works to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 5 days agomessage-square52linkfedilink
minus-squarepeoplebeproblems@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up9·5 days agoHmmm. This sort of implies that our immediate understanding of sight is inaccurate until we analyze it more? Fascinating
minus-squareastropenguin5@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·edit-25 days agoMoreso that a lot of our image processing and depth perception is highly based on shadows, and a 2d image that lacks true depth can trick it somewhat easily.
minus-squareKorhaka@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 days agoWell our eyes didn’t really evolve for flat LED displays
minus-squaredependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·5 days agoThe mind is weird Like really weird
minus-squareSwedneck@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·5 days agoit implies we can’t magically omnisce knowledge about objects, we have to go by what we say and say “well it looks like a valley so presumably it is”
Hmmm.
This sort of implies that our immediate understanding of sight is inaccurate until we analyze it more?
Fascinating
Moreso that a lot of our image processing and depth perception is highly based on shadows, and a 2d image that lacks true depth can trick it somewhat easily.
Well our eyes didn’t really evolve for flat LED displays
The mind is weird
Like really weird
it implies we can’t magically omnisce knowledge about objects, we have to go by what we say and say “well it looks like a valley so presumably it is”